Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
Anything objective I have read pretty convincingly debunks public financing of stadiums as having very little economic benefit, and is generally considered to be about the poorest investment a government can make with its public funds. If you can find something that makes a convincing case otherwise, feel free to share.
I do think there are some intangible benefits to having a sports team though, and the fact is Calgary has to compete with other cities that do benefit from public financing, so in some ways it is probably a bit of a necessary evil if you want to keep a competitive team. It's too bad though that all the levels of government can't get together and agree to get out of this business.
It really doesn't pass the "smell test" that a team can have payrolls approaching 100 million/year, but can't finance a 500 million dollar asset. To really over-simplify things: What's a mortgage on a 500 million stadium? 30-40 million per year? Seems like the obvious answer is to pay players less and pay for your own damn building? It seems that all public financing does is inflate salaries. And directing money to player's salaries is not really great for a city when the players who are making that money likely end up spending the bulk of it elsewhere over the course of their lifetime.
But Calgary is not a vacuum and they probably just have to suck it up and go along with the rest of the continent.
|
This is exactly how I feel, but word much better that I probably would have.